skirtcafe.org

Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.

crfriend wrote:I think that in a case such as this, health and safety take primacy over "religious expression". If that woman did manage to deep fry her hand (and likely much of an arm) a lawsuit would have occurred which would have cost the establishment a mint -- especially when it would have been the woman's own fault for not mastering her garments. It's one thing if this happens at home when "pregnant and barefoot", but it's intolerable in commercial settings and I suspect the law allows for that. (Fryer oils can also be an ignition source if there is open flame in the vicinity. Extrapolate that to a worst-case scenario.)

Well, extrapolate anything to the worst case and we can justify never doing anything, not even nothing!

The balance between freedom in religious expressions and concerns about their possible harmful individual or collective effects on others is always weighted against minority religions, because there are no objective measures for things like the importance of particular expressions or the level of tolerance for perceived risks that we should expect people to have. All judgement will lean towards prohibition when it comes to the ways of a minority group and lean towards permission for the ways of the majority group.

For example, real fur trees, a well-established fire hazard, are deployed in many workplaces at Christmas, but Sikhs have been prosecuted for failing to wear helmuts whilst riding motorcycles. The latter happens even though the direct material risk is entirely on the Sikh rider.

So, it's never really that simple and motivations always need to be extremely well interrogated, often on a case-by-case basis, before making such generalisations.

Rokje wrote:I'm wearing skirts every day now, and my wife helps me finetuning my styling. At first she laughed, but now she is supportive. All the family knows, all our friends knows, and no one seem to bother.

I'm the luckiest man in a skirt

So where are you again? We should add it to the list of skirt-friendly places.

Daryl wrote:Well, extrapolate anything to the worst case and we can justify never doing anything, not even nothing!

Indeed one can do that with anything, but usually it's so far of a leap as to be statistically almost impossible. It's the matters of real risk that need to be addressed. No matter how hard our mommy-society tries to eliminate risk it's always going to be there, so I'm actually an advocate of increasing the amount of low-level risk involved -- it'd make people pay more attention.

For example, real fur trees, a well-established fire hazard [...]

Well, that one had me scratching my head for a moment, and an attempt at a visualisation didn't help matters either. I got a good laugh out of it, though, so thank you for that!

In the case of real (Christmas) trees, risk is greatly mitigated by making sure the thing has enough water; also, modern technology (e.g. LED lights) further reduces the risk dramatically. In the case of your Sikh motorcyclist and his tangle with the law, recall that the risk is not solely to the rider at all for not wearing a helmet; there are externalities involved. Canada has a developed health-care system that costs a lot to keep running; the helmet-less Sikh on a motorcycle places extra risk on the health-care system that could be avoided.

So, it's never really that simple and motivations always need to be extremely well interrogated, often on a case-by-case basis, before making such generalisations.

We get this here in the States occasionally, too, and frequently with tragic consequences. I recall one case where a fundamentalist Christian family pursued prayer instead of medical care for a child of theirs who had an intestinal blockage. The outcome was entirely predictable and ghastly -- the gruesome and agonising death of the child. All in the name of "religious freedom".

Daryl wrote:So, it's never really that simple and motivations always need to be extremely well interrogated, often on a case-by-case basis, before making such generalisations.

We get this here in the States occasionally, too, and frequently with tragic consequences. I recall one case where a fundamentalist Christian family pursued prayer instead of medical care for a child of theirs who had an intestinal blockage. The outcome was entirely predictable and ghastly -- the gruesome and agonising death of the child. All in the name of "religious freedom".

I can flat out tell you that the powers that be in my place of employment will NOT be telling these women they can not wear their skirts under ANY circumstances. If the woman would have gotten hurt, they would have paid the workers comp claim, and most likely no mention of the long skirt that led to the accident. Any evidence that pointed to the skirt as the problem would have been swept under the rug and all involved, hush hush about it.

If my employer made it a directive that these longer skirts could not be worn for safety reasons, the backlash in the area could be enough to shutter stores. You just don't tell a woman no around here. She gets what she wants... ALWAYS.

There is a dress code at work, however I can tell you that first off, the dress code for female employees is MUCH more lenient than that of male employees, further, it is simply NOT enforced at all for females. Males on the other hand are held to very strict enforcement of the dress code. We are expected to wear long pants, black or khaki, with a polo or dress shirt and tie. NOTHING ELSE. Women on the other hand can quite literally wear whatever they want. I've seen them at work in all sorts of eclectic blouses, spaghetti strap tops, leggings, jeans, pants, skirts, mini skirts, floor sweepers, hair dyed all types of odd colors like blue, green, orange, etc, wild hair styles, makeup galore, press on finger nails, the list goes on and on...

But... they're women... again, who's gonna tell them no?

"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."-Manly Palmer Hall

Rokje wrote:I'm wearing skirts every day now, and my wife helps me finetuning my styling. At first she laughed, but now she is supportive. All the family knows, all our friends knows, and no one seem to bother.

I'm the luckiest man in a skirt

So where are you again? We should add it to the list of skirt-friendly places.

I've looked up your location in the Netherlands. No shortage of waterways where you live, but you must get a lot of aircraft noise there, being so near Schipol. My 'Great Experiences' there have been competing in the Amstell Head-of-the-river rowing, sponsored by Heineken and run by Nereus Roklub, Amsterdam. Our last time there was in March 2005 and it was freezing with frequent heavy snow showers, but immensely enjoyable. On Day 1 we rowed 2500 meters and also a 500 meter sprint and on Day 2 we rowed 5000 meters.We (Old Collegians Ireland) won our D-class (43-50 year-olds) event and I still have a Heineken glass tankard, competitor prize.

Hi Tom, I can say the noise of aircraft is not that worse at all. Sometimes they come over our garden but that is only the case with wind directions from the North to Northwest. On the other hand being close to Amsterdam, Leiden, The Hague and Rotterdam is nice for shopping en go out to have some fun.

Woubrugge is a very small village in the rural piece of land that we call "The Green Heart". Lot's of grass lands, cows and rivers.

Wearing a skirt in this part of the country I experienced no reaction from anyone I met. In the cities no one seems to care, they all seems busy with they're own life.

Be proud to wear a skirt or dress they are just clothes. Yes , they are for men too I'm Marica, a 54 year old girl.

Yes, R. You are well situated near several interesting places. I had a daughter spend some months in Leiden working at a tulip centre and I visited her there a few times. Living at that time in N. Germany, the Netherlands were very close. I have once ventured out kilted in Amsterdam some time ago and I might as well have been wearing trousers as I doubt if anyone even glanced at it. Any walking tour of Amsterdam is a 'great experience', so interesting a place it is. Last year I sailed a week on an old barge on the Ijsselmeer & Markenmeer. A delightful adventure. I was with my old German Nordenhammer Shantychor and we sang and drank our heads off !

moonshadow wrote:[I can flat out tell you that the powers that be in my place of employment will NOT be telling these women they can not wear their skirts under ANY circumstances. If the woman would have gotten hurt, they would have paid the workers comp claim, and most likely no mention of the long skirt that led to the accident. Any evidence that pointed to the skirt as the problem would have been swept under the rug and all involved, hush hush about it.

Isn't that why long skirts are called floorsweepers?

moonschadow wrote:If my employer made it a directive that these longer skirts could not be worn for safety reasons, the backlash in the area could be enough to shutter stores. You just don't tell a woman no around here. She gets what she wants... ALWAYS.

There is a dress code at work, however I can tell you that first off, the dress code for female employees is MUCH more lenient than that of male employees, further, it is simply NOT enforced at all for females. Males on the other hand are held to very strict enforcement of the dress code. We are expected to wear long pants, black or khaki, with a polo or dress shirt and tie. NOTHING ELSE. Women on the other hand can quite literally wear whatever they want. I've seen them at work in all sorts of eclectic blouses, spaghetti strap tops, leggings, jeans, pants, skirts, mini skirts, floor sweepers, hair dyed all types of odd colors like blue, green, orange, etc, wild hair styles, makeup galore, press on finger nails, the list goes on and on...

But... they're women... again, who's gonna tell them no?

Doesn't safety prevail? Isn't it for the employer to set rules and enforce them? But are the activities carried out by the women similar to those done by men?In the pesent atmosphere, telling to dress in accordance with company regulations, could even be considered harassment, eventhough the employer could use the argument to ensure that the women do not sollicitate to a #metoo situation. It can be considerd risk management.

Almost. It's actually a play on words having to do with the multiple meanings of "sweep".

moonschadow wrote:If my employer made it a directive that these longer skirts could not be worn for safety reasons, the backlash in the area could be enough to shutter stores. You just don't tell a woman no around here. She gets what she wants... ALWAYS.

[... T]hey're women, [...] who's gonna tell them no?

Gusto10 wrote:Doesn't safety prevail? Isn't it for the employer to set rules and enforce them? But are the activities carried out by the women similar to those done by men?

In the present atmosphere, telling to dress in accordance with company regulations, could even be considered harassment, eventhough the employer could use the argument to ensure that the women do not sollicitate to a #metoo situation. It can be considered risk management.

In a sane, rational world safety would prevail, but in this particular situation it seems to be the other way 'round. Note Moonshadow's world coordinates and what the local "customs" are there. "Religious freedom" trumps rationality every time. There's also an unwillingness to enforce rules against women in the overall culture because of the asymmetry of power that exists between the sexes now. The only way the safety rules regarding dress could be enforced on women in the workplace today would be with a female boss; a male boss would immediately draw accusations of harassment or worse -- and even if exonerated in court (at high cost) would still get excoriated by public opinion and potentially still lose his livelihood.

What needs to happen in the short term is for some of these really high-profile cases to be tried in actual courts -- NOT in the "court of public opinion" -- and if the allegations cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser should stand on charges of perjury under oath and, if convicted, face the identical penalty that the accused would have if convicted of the allegation. That'd put a stop to these sorts of shenanigans. Are some of these men guilty? Likely. (After all the "casting couch" has been a standing joke for decades, and we do understand that power tends to corrupt, with privilege corrupting even more.) Are they all guilty? Entirely likely not.

Back to the point, even I'm bright enough not to wear very long skirts if I'm going to be doing anything where there was a possibility that I'd be in danger because of my attire. But, that's rational thought intruding again. And, in any case, my good experiences in a skirt overwhelmingly outnumber my bad ones.

crfriend wrote:In a sane, rational world safety would prevail, but in this particular situation it seems to be the other way 'round. Note Moonshadow's world coordinates and what the local "customs" are there. "Religious freedom" trumps rationality every time. There's also an unwillingness to enforce rules against women in the overall culture because of the asymmetry of power that exists between the sexes now.

This is pretty much the way of it, with one exception: Sometimes there are fights within "religious freedom" circles itself. Often times it's between Christianity and a different religion. Nationally the big boogeyman is Islam, but there is a local situation brewing here in Tazewell County (our neighboring county) of which I am involving myself to a degree in which a new Pagan shop has opened in Richlands Virginia and neighboring churches are lobbying the town to close it down. It's somewhat puzzling to me how these people (the churches in question) think that they have the sole power to decide what religions are allowed in their community.

The store wants to read Tarot to supplement their income in addition to providing a service to those willing to pay. The town has threatened legal ramifications should the proprietors (a homosexual couple) dare read the Tarot on business property as it's not zoned for this. At issue now is adding a special use permit to allow for this practice on business property. Funny... I somehow doubt the Christian community would have to obtain a "special use permit" to exercise their faith, even on business property.

I intend to speak on it tonight at the Richlands Town Council meeting if I can make it in time. A coworker suggested I go in my "weekend civilian attire" (a skirt), however I explained that as this really isn't my fight, this is politics (it's actually that really ugly spot where politics and religion clash), and I'll already be representing people who are generally frowned upon for what they believe and their sexual preference... in a small mountain town at that. I don't want to hamper our efforts. Now if the matter before the Council was some sort of anti-crossdressing code, then I'd certainly wear a skirt. I'd show up and demand that if I am to be arrested for wearing a skirt than so should all trouser wearing women.

But, that's not the case here.

...and if the allegations cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser should stand on charges of perjury under oath and, if convicted, face the identical penalty that the accused would have if convicted of the allegation.

HA! Not in this lifetime! Our judicial system is light years away from that place! Sexual crimes where men are the accused are the modern day witch hunt. A man's best hope is just to avoid the scenarios all together. And now the femnazis are even criticizing us for demanding witnesses in situations where we may find ourselves alone with women, as though we dare not have the audacity to even claim that a woman "might" make a false accusation. I believe the exact quote I read on this article in question was "if a man has to worry about being falsely accused, then he's probably already guilty of it".... [0]

...and so it begins...

[0] I do apologize, I know I normally cite the referencing article, but I read it a few weeks ago on my phone and I can't remember how I found it now. But you'll just have to take my word for it, it was the usual "men are monsters, women are Goddesses" bullsh!t, which I'm sure most of us know, isn't a hard sentiment to locate in our culture.

"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."-Manly Palmer Hall

Well, that one had me scratching my head for a moment, and an attempt at a visualisation didn't help matters either. I got a good laugh out of it, though, so thank you for that!...Canada has a developed health-care system that costs a lot to keep running; the helmet-less Sikh on a motorcycle places extra risk on the health-care system that could be avoided.

Heh, then why do we still allow smoking, and hockey?

So, it's never really that simple and motivations always need to be extremely well interrogated, often on a case-by-case basis, before making such generalisations.

We get this here in the States occasionally, too, and frequently with tragic consequences. I recall one case where a fundamentalist Christian family pursued prayer instead of medical care for a child of theirs who had an intestinal blockage. The outcome was entirely predictable and ghastly -- the gruesome and agonising death of the child. All in the name of "religious freedom".

We've had several of those go to court for resolution. We don't have the equivalent of your constitution so the welfare of the child trumps religious freedom almost all the time.